4 ms·

It's only a sacrifice if you'd actually want to do things that would raise concern. On the other hand, it is a huge benefit if you'd rather not be surrounded b

It's only a sacrifice if you'd actually want to do things that would raise concern. On the other hand, it is a huge benefit if you'd rather not be surrounded by people with those kinds of concerns. It's nice to know that none of your coworkers are likely to steal your stuff, commit acts of violence upon you, spill fentanyl on your desk, embezzle the company's assets, offer you food items with unmentioned unconventional ingredients, or do anything other than be calm and level-headed.

opportune 8y ago
Those are pretty extreme. For me and probably 90% of other devs who don't want to get a security clearance, it's because of prior drug use. I don't even do anything like that other than smoke weed these days (which I would easily quit if I needed to for a job, though I still think that's very outdated BS) but the government seems really scared about people who've even previously used drugs. No, I'm not going to spill fentanyl, weed, or any other drug on your desk and I'm also not going to lie during the clearance process to say that I've smoked weed less than 50 times in my life - but apparently that means I can't get a clearance.
- tiraloafuera123 8y ago
  it's not the drug use that is the problem. a lot of the time it is about honesty. If you try to hide anything on clearance paperwork, and they find it (they always find stuff), that's immediate disqualification. there are people with all kinds of backgrounds, and some with drug use in their background, with active clearances. it's not automatic any more. just be 100% honest. the adjudicator needs to make a determination of whether they think you could be compromised in some way. just because someone smoked weed in college or got a DUI once doesn't mean they can be compromised.
  - sailfast 8y ago
    Meta, but I wanted to say congrats on your throwaway name. Nicely chosen.
tom_ 8y ago
Maybe I'm just not level-headed enough to have noticed, and/or unusually lucky, but I have to say that none of this resembles any of my experiences of ordinary employment.
sailfast 8y ago
Kinda? A different version of this argument looks like: "I'm not worried about surveillance because I never do anything wrong." but that's a philosophical argument. Just from a straight "annoying" / pragmatic perspective I can think of the following issues: Marijuana is legal in a lot of states including DC but not if you hold a clearance, if you're into that kind of thing. Anything international makes for a paperwork drill, not to mention possible approvals required. Any normal domestic interaction with the law (law suits, getting pulled over, arrested and not charged, etc) all become a potential job-destroyer. Not to mention you're reporting all of this stuff to the government 100% of the time. It may not be a hassle if you live a pretty conventional lifestyle, don't travel much, etc, but it definitely adds a layer of annoyance at a minimum.

opportune 8y ago

Those are pretty extreme. For me and probably 90% of other devs who don't want to get a security clearance, it's because of prior drug use. I don't even do anything like that other than smoke weed these days (which I would easily quit if I needed to for a job, though I still think that's very outdated BS) but the government seems really scared about people who've even previously used drugs. No, I'm not going to spill fentanyl, weed, or any other drug on your desk and I'm also not going to lie during the clearance process to say that I've smoked weed less than 50 times in my life - but apparently that means I can't get a clearance.

tiraloafuera123 8y ago
it's not the drug use that is the problem. a lot of the time it is about honesty. If you try to hide anything on clearance paperwork, and they find it (they always find stuff), that's immediate disqualification. there are people with all kinds of backgrounds, and some with drug use in their background, with active clearances. it's not automatic any more. just be 100% honest. the adjudicator needs to make a determination of whether they think you could be compromised in some way. just because someone smoked weed in college or got a DUI once doesn't mean they can be compromised.
- sailfast 8y ago
  Meta, but I wanted to say congrats on your throwaway name. Nicely chosen.

tom_ 8y ago

Maybe I'm just not level-headed enough to have noticed, and/or unusually lucky, but I have to say that none of this resembles any of my experiences of ordinary employment.

sailfast 8y ago

Kinda? A different version of this argument looks like: "I'm not worried about surveillance because I never do anything wrong." but that's a philosophical argument. Just from a straight "annoying" / pragmatic perspective I can think of the following issues: Marijuana is legal in a lot of states including DC but not if you hold a clearance, if you're into that kind of thing. Anything international makes for a paperwork drill, not to mention possible approvals required. Any normal domestic interaction with the law (law suits, getting pulled over, arrested and not charged, etc) all become a potential job-destroyer. Not to mention you're reporting all of this stuff to the government 100% of the time. It may not be a hassle if you live a pretty conventional lifestyle, don't travel much, etc, but it definitely adds a layer of annoyance at a minimum.